But Rob Bishop says they are worth nothing.Golly, could such an
esteemed leader of the Grand Old Poobahs be wrong?
Public lands have static seasonal employment levels.Think how many
MORE could be employed in the area if natural resources were developed on those
lands! The economists' letter is extremely weak. Fencing off land cannot
create significant employment.
Moab, really, everyone down there has a 4x4, ATV, motorcycle or 4x4 Subaru and
they are driving off road. There is know way to say that people are going to
wilderness area's. Most people including the people writing the story don't
know the difference between wilderness designated land and wilderness land that
the majority of people recreate on using vehicles.
Obama administration's real intent is to put fences around national parks and
monuments just like wilderness areas. They just wanted to keep all touring cars
out and get those who can walk to hike several miles into backcountry. This is a
volation of American Disability Acts.
Total spending by travelers and tourists in Utah climbed 4.7 percent in 2010 to
$6.53 billion.Sensible would tap yellowstone for geothermal, sell it
to china, and charge more for electricity in WY, MT and ID.Selling
our children's inheritance because times are rough right now, how cowardly.
"The question of adding more federal lands would be a challenge today, but
in five years it may not be," said Walt Hecox, with the Colorado College
State of the Rockies Project. http://www.newgoing.com
The key is to take care of the National Parks we have now and not keep adding
more and more. We also need to make sure we keep multi use areas. Most people
who go to Moab go for OHV activities and visit the parks as a side activity
while they are there. This is one of the great things about Southern Utah, it is
not all for one and exclude the other.
A sensible multi-use plan is optimum for the economy. Managing them for all to
enjoy is the ethical thing to do. There is a balanced approach that ensures
beautiful places for our children to enjoy and recreate in, and provide natural
resources to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Let's be pragmatic, not
Jobs in the extraction industries typicaly pay around $50,000 a year. Tourism
jobs are mostly around minimum wage, throw in that they are also seasonal and
you are lucky to make $15,000, poverty wages. No wonder the poverty class is
growing under this administration.
As a resident of southeast Utah, I laugh at this article. Baaaahhhaaaa.. this
is the biggest stretch yet at pushing for more wilderness. An increase in the
economy? Give me a break. As many have mentioned most individuals come to this
area for the opportunity to explore the back country. Some come to explore on
foot. Some on ATV's and many more in a fourwheel vehicle. Most want the chance
to see the area on their own without some government approval. Locking more
space up will only reduce economic growth in the area not increase it. What a
Sensible: "Think how many MORE could be employed in the area if natural
resources were developed on those lands!"The West is littered
with the windswept ruins of cities that hitched their economies to the
extractive commodities wagon. Ever been to Frisco, Gold Hill, Sego, National,
Consumers, Sunshine, Ophir, Mercur, Mohrland, Temple City, Silver Reef, Mammoth,
Dividend, Grass Creek? Nah. Didn't think so.After the infamous
Black Sunday in Colorado, when the oil shale facilites shut down leaving the
Colorado western slope towns reeling, there were bumper stickers that read,
"Lord, just give us one more boom and we promise not to [excrete] it
away." The problem with basing an economy on the removal of any finite
resource (and all natural resources are finite) is that eventually that resource
runs out (or at least becomes uneconomical to produce). Extraction of finite
resources is by definition unsustainable in the long run. Economies based on
extraction are destined for boom and bust.There is a place for
resource development, but healthy economies need to diversify. They need to
conserve and preserve their assets (resources) and consume them judiciously if
they still want to be around in the future.
Not tapping the periphery of Yellowstone for clean, renewable electricity is
just plain foolish. Studies show it would not harm the park one bit. You'd
never know the power plants were there. And, by the way, it's impossible to
sell electricity to China.Most mineral and energy resources are
nowhere near national and state parks.Comparing Old West mining
towns to anything today is ludicrous. We treat the land differently today, and
not just because of Federal rules. I've been to most of those ghost towns, by
the way.If you want to scar the land, put up wind farms and expand
use of battery-powered cars that require vastly expanded mining to produce the
batteries. Then cover the desert with photovoltaic panels that produce great
amounts of toxic chemicals (including Cadmium) in their manufacture and
contribute to the heat-island effect.
Sensible, forecasting green dystopia: "Then cover the desert with
photovoltaic panels..."I've never been one to push solar PE on
desert open range when there are acres and acres of unexploited urban surfaces
facing the sky. Put PE panels on the roofs of warehouses and shopping centers
and the like, where the power can be used onsite or distributed through the
existing grid infrastructure (no need to build new HV transmission lines to the
remote Wah Wah Valley when there are already lines in West Valley City). The
Univ of Utah Orthopaedic Center parking lot with its tilted rigid awnings is a
solar PE farm just waiting to happen. Why aren't people taking advantage of
that?The mining ghost town example is still valid. I remember Price
in the 1980s, when the mines were closing and every other house had a 4x4 in the
yard for sale. And Parachute, Rifle, and Silt in the 1990s after the oil shale
bust? The point of the letter in the original article is that all too often
politicians give short shrift to amenity values of public lands in favor of
extraction when it comes to creating jobs. Amenities create jobs, too.
One of the fundamental problems with this model is that it is not
sustainable:"Of more critical concern is the declining health
of existing national parks and monuments that are suffering from neglected
infrastructure that threatens the visitor experience"All of
this new tourism is wreaking havoc with the existing parks. Tourism is
benefitting a few elitist environmental outfitters at the expense of the parks.
Those who receive economic benefits from the parks should pay for their upkeep.
Are these people willing to do that? No, they demand more parks and wilderness
to subsidize their profit-making businesses. The new parks will too likely
Corn said: One of the fundamental problems with this model is that it is not
sustainable: Because oil, and mining are?All of this new tourism is
wreaking havoc with the existing parks. Tourism is benefitting a few
elitist environmental outfitters at the expense of the parks.So very
few elitist environmentally conscience people are destroying the parks.While people like ktg are bummed they can't drive wherever there 4x4 can
go.Like a true republican-The terrain will control the "Free
Travel."That's the silliest thing I've heard today.Do they charge the businesses around stadiums for upkeep of the playing field?